On Mon, Apr 01, 2024 at 10:19:47AM -0700, Russ Weight wrote: > > On Mon, Apr 01, 2024 at 10:09:05AM -0700, Russ Weight wrote: > > On Mon, Apr 01, 2024 at 05:46:29PM +0800, Xu Yilun wrote: > > > On Thu, Mar 28, 2024 at 07:35:59PM -0400, Peter Colberg wrote: > > > > From: Ilpo Järvinen <ilpo.jarvinen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > > > The size of the staging area in FLASH for FPGA updates is dependent on the > > > > size of the FPGA. Currently, the staging size is defined as a constant. > > > > Larger FPGAs are coming soon and it will soon be necessary to support > > > > > > Soon? When? You cannot add some feature without a user case. If you do > > > have a use case, put the patch in the same patchset. > > > > There may never be an up-streamed use-case. This is a very small > > change intended to make it easier for a third-party vendor to > > build a card that requires a larger staging area in FLASH. They > > would have to add a new "struct m10bmc_csr_map", but they > > wouldn't have to refactor this code as part of the change I'm OK with this description. Peter, is that what you mean? Or you do have a board type to follow, in which case you need to submit the new board type as well. > > > > This change does not introduce an unused function or variable. > > It is more of a clean-up, making the code more flexible. > > > > Can it not be taken as is? > > Would it be acceptable to just change the commit message to something > like: > > Do not hardwire the staging size in the secure update driver. Move > the staging size to the m10bmc_csr_map structure to make the size > assignment more flexible. That would be much better. Thanks, Yilun
